Re: [Xen-devel] [vMCE design RFC] Xen vMCE design

["Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx>]

> Yet I don't think we're really concerned about performance when handling 
> machine
> checks. But having more than one usable bank must have advantages, else 
> hardware
> wouldn't implement things that way.

Primary reason for multiple banks is h/w design ... the silicon implementing 
the bank
is generally included in the component that generates the error. E.g. there may 
be
multiple memory controllers on a die, each with its own bank. H/W designers hate
running long "wires" across the die as it messes up their layout options.

There may be some secondary side benefit that independent errors might be
reported to different banks, and so avoid some overwrite problems.  But I don't
think that Xen has a big worry with overwrite, does it? In general the errors 
that
you will show to the guest are ones that you expect the guest to handle 
immediately
(e.g. SRAO and SRAR signaled with a machine check). You do not log any corrected
errors to the guest (they can't do anything useful with them). You certainly 
don't
log any errors that are not signaled. So you should never have any errors 
hanging
around in banks for long periods that would get overwritten.

-Tony

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel